Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

ctrl.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#91

Post by lugg »

icebraining wrote: post #58
blablabla123 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the legal argument you’re trying to make died with the Aereo supreme court decision. The ”outline is a browser in a browser” statement is cute but it doesn’t pass the duck test. About Aereo, could you elaborate more on that? I never heard of it, checking the Wikipedia article, I cannot find the word browser inside. I'm seriously interested in that argument because years ago I was considering an idea to do e…

Outline is doing a transformation and then serving a copy of it , not just doing it in place with the copy that the user lawfully obtained. Aereo tried to do the same for TV broadcasting (they were claiming they didn't copy, just digitalize and transmit on behalf of the user), and the courts struck that down.

How is this different from what the web archive does?

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#92

Post by devoply »

d2wa wrote: post #71
devoply wrote: post #27

Best way to kill AMP is to increase bandwidth limits on mobile internet. That's the only justifiable reason for this monstrosity to exist. I can't wait to see AMP die until then I will bide my time...

Actually, you'd have to solve the physics that is holding back latency on mobile networks to compete with AMP.

I don't experience much noticeable latency on 4g. 5g is supposed to fix that with 1ms latency.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#93

Post by zlynx »

devoply wrote: post #27

Best way to kill AMP is to increase bandwidth limits on mobile internet. That's the only justifiable reason for this monstrosity to exist. I can't wait to see AMP die until then I will bide my time...

AMP is mostly a response to sites that want to load 20 MB video and endless popups timed to appear just when you want to click on "Next".

Build reasonable web sites and don't use AMP.

I won't even use mobile web without Firefox and Ublock anymore. The difference between that and stock Chrome is ridiculous. Browsing with Chrome results in about 5x the data usage.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#94

Post by thinkloop »

dorgo wrote: post #78
thinkloop wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it was technologically possible It's actually pretty easy, you can start chrome with --disable-web-security flag [1] > I also think you could argue "What if outline loaded articles in an iframe?" I'm sure this would be legal as it's equivalent to loading the site in a tab. The parent site wouldn't be able to manipulate any of the content/ads/paywalls/functionality, and the content site gets the full hit. [1] htt…

> The parent site wouldn't be able to manipulate any of the content/ads/paywalls/functionality What? What do we disable CORS for if not to allow Javascript from one domain manipulate content in an iframe of an other domain? Am I missing something?

Disabling CORS would allow you to make straight requests to foreign content from your site and manipulate the responses exactly as though they came from your own servers - no iframe needed. CORS does not disable iframe sandboxing.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#95

Post by posterboy »

acdha wrote: post #85
lixtra wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be true for every switch on the route.

Those don't modify or cache the content, only serve it to the user which the publisher approved serving it to, and increasingly with HTTPS they can't even see it. Moreover, the publisher is implicitly accepting that by being on the Internet.

Of course a lot of content is cached along the route, for frequent access urls.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#96

Post by acdha »

posterboy wrote: post #95
acdha wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those don't modify or cache the content, only serve it to the user which the publisher approved serving it to, and increasingly with HTTPS they can't even see it. Moreover, the publisher is implicitly accepting that by being on the Internet.

Of course a lot of content is cached along the route, for frequent access urls.

Not by network hardware, which is the context of this discussion.

It's also not the type of activity being discussed, which is unauthorized caching: a content provider who uses a CDN is doing so intentionally and while shared local proxies are increasingly uncommon they also respect the Cache-Control headers set by the source — see e.g. https://redbot.org/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com — so again there's the distinguishing factor of authorization.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#98

Post by sam0x17 »

realusername wrote: post #25
sam0x17 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this is disallowed by CORS/single origin policy

CORS is just a security feature, it does not imply anything about copyright or terms of use.

Yeah, but my point is what was being suggested is physically impossible with CORS in place, so it does imply something about what is in the realm of possibility.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#99

Post by posterboy »

acdha wrote: post #96
posterboy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course a lot of content is cached along the route, for frequent access urls.

Not by network hardware, which is the context of this discussion. It's also not the type of activity being discussed, which is unauthorized caching: a content provider who uses a CDN is doing so intentionally and while shared local proxies are increasingly uncommon they also respect the Cache-Control headers set by the source — see e.g. https://redbot.org/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com — so again there's the distingu…

I'm absolutely foggy about the specifics, but I wasn't talking about CDN, rather about the ISP-side.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#100

Post by joegahona »

d2wa wrote: post #72
joegahona wrote: post #18

As others have said, the publishers opt in to it... but I wondert whether litigious photographers could argue that their contracts never indicated their photos could exist anywhere but on the specific domain in the contract.

> [...] contracts never indicated their photos could exist anywhere but on the specific domain in the contract I doubt many contracts are written for specific domain names. I expect most contracts allow for a publisher to use it in their publications without specifying exactly whether that publication is a website, magazine, publisher branded app, or an Apple News article.

You would think so, but with publications on the ropes, it gets sliced and diced more than you might think. Photo rights are cheaper to obtain by the publication if they limit the platforms (and the time frame of rights, and a bunch of other factors), and savvy photographers will call out pubs on that.
Post reply on HN